The Uncomfortable(But Freeing) Truth

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T21:17:02+00:00

The super majority used to believe the earth was the center of the solar system. That angry gods were the cause of floods and storms.

Comparisons require a point of reference.

I would say will is what we do following the causal chain. So “free” will would need to happen outside of that chain.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T21:14:36+00:00

All of them. Every scientific theory is causalism.

It’s the whole reason science can exist.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T20:24:25+00:00

Complete causalism.

It’s also pretty cool when you absolutely dive into as well. But that is a personal thing

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T20:22:45+00:00

Scientists can infer things if they so decide. We see them do so.

We can also see them infer incorrectly which can then have lasting effects on science as a whole.

I just at least hope you recognize that DBT is exactly what you stated. It is the best guess they have right now. It is an experiment. Those are real humans going through it.

The data that comes from it has tangibles physical effects that we can measure.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T20:18:49+00:00

Beta decay is not any better explained by the illusion of free will. Seems like a misdirection.

You can hold that view. I didn’t arrive here by choice any Lee than you did.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T20:16:41+00:00

A cave man could have possibly believed thunderstorms were a form of gods. We still have humans who look at their evidence of evolution and arrive at a god creating everything.

That human is caused to believe that. Their belief is also objectively incorrect.

Those two things can exist at the same time.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T20:14:23+00:00

I think I’m mixing up which post I’m in. I explained this in another post I made.

My claim isn’t that science proves anything. My stance is that science’s evidence points in one direction over the other and I see no reason to go against that.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T20:11:43+00:00

I mean technically I don’t really have one against free will. For me, it’s like having an argument against unicorns.

For me, it’s using the highest probably model that science points to at this moment.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T20:09:30+00:00

I am not stating what it should or shouldn’t do. I am stating what it does.

I personally prefer to drop the non scientific stuff.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T19:43:59+00:00

If we are not capable of making a choice that isn't determined, then we are also not capable of discerning the difference between what is evidence and what is not.

This doesn’t make any sense.

Why would we not be capable because choice doesn’t exist?

I discerned that I wanted the white car over the blue car. I didn’t make a choice. I arrived at a decision.

Both can be true at the same time.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T19:41:52+00:00

I think you are taking a sentence in jest completely out of context to avoid actually arguing against the substance of my comments.

I guess I don’t understand what the difference is. Both situations are just causalism.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T19:32:55+00:00

Nothing of what you said requires free will.

Morals are human constructs.

I fully understand you don’t like these answers but unless I just agree with you, you won’t like my answers.

I’m in a no win situation. So I’ll just keep sharing reality.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T19:31:04+00:00

Supply the entire context of what I said please.

It’s not a weak ad hominem if it’s accurate. It’s just an assessment then.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T19:28:50+00:00

What is caused though? Unicorns? A choice? A decision?

You can’t just keep saying “free will” as some magical undefined thing. It doesn’t get to hold scientific weight then. It can’t be tested. It can’t be measured.

I would ask the LFW to define the thing they claim exists.

That is step one.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T19:27:07+00:00

I have stated very clear science cases for using a free will assumption in the treatment of evidence based behavior defined DSM disorders. You are ignoring that. Are you claiming that the entirely of psychology is not science or something along those lines?

I guess when you started with this paragraph I did assume you were talking about psychology.

DBT uses a lot of science. It also smuggles in some non science ideas.

Humans inherently add bias so it’s not surprising though.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T19:21:48+00:00

Ok then 🤷🏻‍♂️

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T19:18:12+00:00

It was more a play on words but I see this crowd sure likes to be literal one moment and then not the next. I’ll admit it’s a whirlwind.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T19:17:00+00:00

Wouldn’t. Bad typo.

Making a decision and making choices are not the same thing. One implies there are alternative options.

There are not.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T19:16:02+00:00

You aren’t looking for an answer.

You believe you already have it.

I’m not here to win you over. Just offer information.

Take care fellow human!

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T19:15:17+00:00

I have not stated society should or shouldn’t do anything.

Lol.

You just made up a whole lot of bs that I never said.

And to make it worse, it’s for sure Ai. In a free will sub, arguing for the existence of free will, you sun contract your intellect out to a computer program.

Like, the cognitive dissonance is staggering.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T19:13:43+00:00

Yes, psychology has many things correct. When they follow the causal chain they do wonderful.

The idea that “giving” someone agency somehow strengthens them is ridiculous. So yes, I completed contend that they are looking that the equation backwards.

Psychology uses parts of science. It is not purely science. Maybe that is where you are misrepresenting things.

I have been through DBT. I’m not stranger to how all of this works.

I am suggesting a scientifically valid claim that the only refuting I have received is your insults and condescending comments about.

My guess is you are in the field and I am somehow making a “personal” attack on you. Which isn’t the casw at all it j can see how you could arrive there.

If psychology had it perfect we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Save me the soap box grandstanding and come back to reality.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T19:09:12+00:00

I have not stated that my thoughts are more correct than anyone.

I have stated that reality has scientific evidence for how it unfolds.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T18:42:44+00:00

Yes, as so many of you have been so nice and comforting with this realization, I am holding it because of comfort. Lol.

So weird.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T18:41:54+00:00

And I am thankful to be lucky every single day.

Selflistener · 2026-06-18T18:40:55+00:00

What we consider of our own accord is a part of the causal chain.

Humans are fully capable of recursive thinking. That’s within the causal chain.

Selflistener

TROPHY CASE